this has been rumored.
this has been rumored.
Dual post. Believe this was confirmed yesterday.
apologies then. it doesn't come up in mgosearch and the article is timestamped from 10 minutes ago.
plus, the article says "the NCAA clarified on Friday."
Alanis wouldn't think so.
I hope Kiffin is wrong. If USC doesn't suffer a falloff in recruiting, then the sanctions won't end up meaning all that much.
I'm not sure he's ever been right about anything so I wouldn't worry too much about him stumbling onto the truth this time.
mode. He's got to be at this point. I'd love to listen in on those conversations with recruits right now. I doubt he's getting the enthusiatic reactions he's claming he's getting.
I don't think there's any way around it: 30 scholarships over 3 years will hurt, even if 'SC sign quality guys like they typically do. Too little margin for error. SC may not be down for long (Alabama came back pretty quickly) but I don't see how the won't be a significant drop off in 2012, 2013, 2014 when the impact will be felt and when these smaller classes will be leaned on.
I'm just loving college sports world right now, karma is coming around to bite people in the ass. And come September it will be the opposite effect (all the BS we had to deal with) as we will be dishing out some beatings on the field.
I read somewhere that recruits who haven't already enrolled are free to go while those who enrolled early have to go through some kind of appeal process. I am guessing that Tom VH knows who can do what here.
this article is unclear about that. it says:
The rule does not apply to freshman who have signed national letters of intent, however.
if you haven't yet enrolled, are you a freshman? anyone know?
I believe that anyone who has signed a letter of intent, whether they've enrolled or not, would need to be released from said LOI before being able to transfer without losing a year of eligibility.
You do realize we're talking about the guy who called for this, right?:
"I don't think it's going to affect recruiting. USC is still USC".
I'll believe it when I see it, but any time a university loses 30 schollies over a 4 year period, a BCS national championship and Heisman Trophy potentially taken away, and a 2 year postseason ban it doesn't seem possible to do anything BUT negatively impact recruiting.
we can get Ronald Johnson this time around!
Beat me to it. Why not throw in Nick Perry too? Although he's a RS soph, so may not count.
He could come, but he'd need to be released. Although for players looking to get into the NFL, it's gotta be tough to swallow that you're only going to play in one or two bowl games.
True. I can't see Kiffin or Mike Garrett agreeing to many releases.
that could likely instantly start for us and would come here? A second team guy would be more likely to get his release from Garrett and Kiffin.
I have no idea. If you're kicked off the team, would that release you from your LOI? For instance, if player X told the coaches, "I'm not going to play for you because I don't want to be here now that all this shit has gone down " but didn't actually quit, just half-assed it to the was booted, would he still need to be released?
Like an immediate-impact player who plays safety or corner. That would be a godsend.
Sadly, our own little investigation/penalty situation may be just enough of a cloud that a guy leaving one place because of sanctions would be less likely to consider another place facing the prospect of sanctions -- at least until we can be sure that the NCAA doesn't add significantly to the self-imposed sanctions (and by then it might be too late).
This is likely going to be the case. Other programs will benefit from an exodus, but not Michigan. I can imagine it might be difficult to sell the logic of coming to MIchigan at this time:
Player: I'm leaving USC because of the sanctions
Interlocutor: Probably a good idea. Where are you thinking of going?
Interlocutor: Um...isn't Michigan also facing sanctions?
Player: Yes, but, I live in Michigan.
Interlocutor: But that didn't keep you in Michigan before.
Player: Yeah, but, um, yeah. I think I just want to get closer to home
Interlocutor: Then why not Michigan State? Penn State? Notre Dame? OSU? Wouldn't it make more sense to go to a program that is not also facing sanctions?
Michigan will not benefit from USC sanctions in terms of current players.
know of any specific players that may have an interest in coming to us?
i think we'd all be speculating at this point.
Hey, hey Rich, warm up the snake oil and get your wizzard's hat out of the closet ...
CB T.J. Bryant would be pretty cool in my book. He is a sizable CB from Florida so maybe Rich Rod went after him back in the day.
No idea if he has any actual interest in joining us.
for losing Demar. C'mon RR - O' Let Do It!!
How's that rap deal looking Mr. Henderson?!?!
I am going to remain pessimistic with regards to transfers from USC, because it would soooo USC to retain all of their players and reel in a handful of 5 stars even with a post season ban.
Per the article:
"But schools with an interest in a USC junior or senior ARE allowed to initiate contact with the player, Osburn said."
I was suprised to the point of wondering whether that was a typo. Ordinarily, encouraging a player already at another school to transfer is about the worst violation you can commit.